>>3098269 (lb)

A few, Yes; the majority, No.

I look at it quite simply: if they had the horsepower to mix it in this rather merciless playground, they would already have been here. It’s all about natural selection.

We do need to rise above and learn to be merciful. I merely offer that: no one need agree. Remember that they want the same outcomes that we do; but they need to appreciate that where they’ve been is not where they now are. Our vitriol and intransigence exist for damn good reasons: the sifting and interrogation of ideas and evidence. That cannot be allowed to degrade. Ever.

It’s a process of adjustment for the stateless newcomers, but some will survive and flourish. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do need to STFU for a while and adjust.

For anyone reading this and thinking: what an arrogant, self-important attitude, I’d offer one thing in response. The anons here have given countless hours to research, discussion, formulation, reformulation, and the weighing of open source evidence over the last year, and many of us for years/decades before that. There is a need for rigorous, peer tested work. That’s what has been built and exists here and that’s why we defend the culture and extreme work ethic. We care intensely about the work and findings, even where we vehemently disagree about the conclusions and significance among ourselves.

This is our laboratory and our faculty common room. All are welcome to observe, but to speak is a privilege that comes with having something substantive to contribute.

>>3098758

“A plane” does not necessarily mean a Boeing 757, ostensibly operated as AA77 on the morning of 9/11/01.

A Raytheon A3D Skywarrior is a plane.

And a plane hitting the Pentagon does not preclude a missile also hitting the Pentagon, fired from a drone-modified plane.

If you ask the wrong questions, or sloppy questions, you’ll inevitably get the wrong answers. That’s what seems to have happened today.

>>3099052

I think that’s mostly the reason: stress test the platform and the audience with a few throwaway responses to easily predictable questions that could be answered with what are really non-answers.

This wasn’t a conspiracy theorists’ convention.

Most still fail to realize that this is an intelligence op, not an offer of total transparency for the deep, dark secrets of the US Government.

In that, it’s also signalling that the audience, in large part, is still crassly naïve and doesn’t understand what’s going on.

I regret to admit it, but this afternoon screamed a mass of desperately hungry people crying out to be fed some tasty morsels from the hand of Q.

We, as a nation need to toughen the fuck up and act like information warriors, or nothing of real substance will ever be disclosed.

>>3099213

Lack of specificity in the question leads to an opaque answer.

It was a non-response to the wrong question.

Philosophers, scientists, and lawyers know how to ask questions. It appears that few others know where to begin.

But Q wouldn’t have answered a truly searching question anyway. Revelation was never the purpose.